Mercedes M. Biggurs v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00560-CR No. 05-16-00561-CR No. 05-16-00562-CR No. 05-16-00563-CR MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-57650-U, F14-70586-U, F14-70971-U, F14-75674-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellant Mercedes M. Biggurs appeals her convictions, following the adjudication of her guilt, for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, theft of property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, and two injury to a child offenses. The trial court assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail for the theft conviction, ten years’ imprisonment for each injury to a child conviction, and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160560F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant No. 05-16-00560-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-57650-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2017. –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant No. 05-16-00561-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-70586-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2017. –4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant No. 05-16-00562-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-70971-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2017. –5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant No. 05-16-00563-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-75674-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 7, 2017. –6–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.